Strategic Defence Review 2025

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to welcome the SDR. Like the vast majority of speakers, we on these Benches feel that the work of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team, particularly Fiona Hill and Richard Barrons, has been remarkable; it really does give us an integrated defence review, whereas recent iterations of the so-called integrated security and defence review were a little more fragmented and less strategic than might have been desirable.

We echo the sense from around the Chamber that this SDR has understood the context of the challenges that we in the United Kingdom and our NATO partners and allies face. We also agree with the sentiment in the review—and across the Chamber—that we are at daily risk from cyberattacks and other routes from Russia, and other potential hostile actors. Although the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, thinks the dangers have perhaps been overstated, it is vital that this SDR has understood the challenges of the post-Cold War period. As several speakers have pointed out, we in the West have been rather complacent for too long. We took the Cold War peace dividend and we stayed that way until we got to a point at which Russia could say, “Actually, the West isn’t prepared”. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, about defence expenditure in the 1930s, and we are now in a similar situation.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, I ask the Minister how His Majesty’s Government envisage increasing defence expenditure. Throughout the election and all the way to the NATO summit, all we heard was that the commitment was going to be 2.7%, and then 3% when the financial circumstances allowed. The current wording of the SDR reflects that, and the review team were told to assume 2.5%; that was in the remit. As I understand it, the review team pointed out that more money was needed. However, the NATO commitment to 3.5% of GDP on hard defence expenditure and 1.5% on critical infrastructure and resilience suddenly changes the dynamics to some extent.

As we have heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, there is the question of what we do with the money—how we plan to spend it and when. The numbers are one thing, but the commitment is important. That sends certain signals, not just to our allies and adversaries but potentially to the defence-industrial base, the primes and the subprimes that they may need to ready themselves to build and increase production. Unless there is certainty in terms of letting the contracts and some clarity about what is happening between now and 2035, those companies are not going to start building up their production. For the subprimes and the very small companies in particular, new innovation is going to be very difficult. Can the Minister explain to the House a little bit about the Treasury’s and the MoD’s vision on expenditure?

Several noble and noble and gallant Lords have talked about resilience. The “whole-of-society approach” would indeed be vital. The review talks particularly about the importance of having a national conversation. Do His Majesty’s Government have any idea about how that national conversation should be initiated? We have heard today that it needs to be led from the top—from the Prime Minister. Maybe I have not been listening. Maybe, a bit like waiting for the third speaker in the gap, who did not exist, I have just been missing the Prime Minister when he has been trying to initiate the conversation. Have people in Paddington, the patch of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, been hearing the Prime Minister saying it is vital that we begin to look at our own critical infrastructure, rebuild defence and spend money on defence? In his very welcome return, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, pointed out that Denis Healey had made the point that if you cut defence expenditure too far, there are no houses, hospitals or schools. I have not heard either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State saying that—are we going to?

In terms of examples, the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, was beginning to give some ideas of encouraging children and young people to find out about defence. We have heard from various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, about cadets. Cadets are part of the way in to recruiting young people, although, obviously, it is not supposed to be a direct move from being in the cadets to full-time military service or being a reservist. Yet has not funding for the cadet forces been cut? Are His Majesty’s Government delivering what they are promising and what is needed in terms of thinking through the position of the cadets and, in particular, the commitment to the reserves? As my noble friend Lord Wallace pointed out, the phrasing in the SDR says that we need to increase the size of the reserves by 20% but immediately says “when funding allows”. So far, the commitments, apart from the commitment at the NATO summit, are still incremental. Increasing the size of the reserves in the 2030s does not suggest any real sense of urgency. Are the Government really committed to increasing the size of the reserves but also to doing what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, pointed out—making sure that there is equality of treatment for the reserves and that they have the same kit and training as the regulars?

In terms of parity of esteem and equality, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentioned that next year we will have a new Armed Forces Bill in the five-year cycle. Given that the SDR is talking about the need to have much more interoperability between the three services, will we see that reflected in policy, but also through the Armed Forces Bill, or is there some other way in which His Majesty’s Government are envisaging making sure that that interoperability will come about?

Linking to wider aspects of interoperability, “NATO first” is a very clear message, and it is always followed up by Ministers of Defence saying, “NATO first, but not only”. The moves to co-operation and bilateral defence agreements with Germany and France have been extremely welcome. My noble friend Lord Wallace did not like the term “minilateralism”, but for many of us it explains precisely what this Government seem to want to do. Will it be done in a joined-up way as part of a strategy, reflecting the language used by the noble Lord, Lord McCabe, in his very welcome maiden speech, when he talked about the importance of joined-up policy? Are bilateralism and minilateralism intended to be part of a joined-up strategy to enable the UK to play a role as part of the E3, but also to ensure that we have a really effective arm of NATO? While I do not expect the Minister to say anything other than that the relationship with the United States as close as it has ever been and as close as it needs to be, are we making sure that we are strengthening the European arm of NATO—whether the United States is with us or whether we are having to act alone?

I will make two very short final points. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones could not be with us today, so he sent me many questions and said, “Maybe you would like to ask one of these”. I do not propose to ask too many of them. The questions were about autonomous weapons. One specific question is: what thinking have His Majesty’s Government done about ensuring that, if we have autonomous weapons systems, there is always a human in the chain?

Finally, several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Alderdice and Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, talked about the non-proliferation treaty. We on these Benches are committed to having a nuclear deterrent, but it is also right that this country does everything it can to look to de-escalation and moving down the ladder of nuclear capabilities. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that in 2026 this country plays a key role in the non-proliferation treaty review?

Afghanistan

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for taking the time to speak with me extensively before the Statement. I thank him and his colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place, for the tone they have adopted. I join the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State James Cartlidge in their apology, on behalf of the British Government, to all those impacted by the data leak. It was a wholly unacceptable breach of data protection protocols and should never have happened.

This is a story of human error, an error of magnitude with profoundly grave and potentially tragic consequences, that was perpetrated by an MoD official and came to light only some 18 months or so after it occurred. Although as a Defence Minister I had no involvement in the issue, at that point in August 2023 the priority was to take all necessary steps as a matter of urgency to mitigate risk to life, hence the court’s involvement that culminated in the grant of a super-injunction. It was the political judgment of the last Government to seek the court’s intervention, and the decision of the court to grant a super-injunction clearly reflected how gravely the court regarded the risk to life. A court injunction is neither a cover-up nor political suppression of information; it is a court order.

No one should be under any misunderstanding about the potential consequence of this leak. If the Government had not sought the injunction, that data could have been disseminated globally through the media. This could have put the lives of countless Afghans at risk—people who helped Britain in our fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who saved the lives of British troops and who are incredibly brave, selfless and committed individuals who put everything at risk, including their families, to help us. If the Government had not sought to prevent the information being disseminated, those Afghans, who gave so much, could have been captured, tortured and murdered. The previous Government would have abnegated their responsibilities if we had left these Afghans to suffer the consequences of this data breach. That is why it was right to seek the injunction and resettle those affected in the UK.

I might observe that, regardless of what Government were in power at the time, these measures were the correct ones to take in the circumstances existing at the time. Indeed, on taking office, the current Government did not seek to have the super-injunction lifted.

Although this was human error and not a political mistake, the political responsibility is to keep the situation under review. It was right that this Government should seek expert advice on whether it was now appropriate to seek to lift the super-injunction and, if so advised, to make the necessary application to the court. In that, the Government have the full support of these Benches.

I understand that the Minister will be limited in what he can say, but I have a few questions for him. Is he in a position to give the House any more details on how the leak happened? I would have thought that there would have been digital safeguards within the MoD that prevented an email with a sensitive attachment being sent to a random person outside the department. What processes were in place to prevent this happening, and why were they not effective? Secondly, can the Minister tell us what the repercussions were for the official who inadvertently sent the data outside formal channels? Finally, what systems have the Government now put in place to learn from this regrettable episode and ensure that everything has been done to prevent a recurrence? As ever, I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I once again thank him for the manner in which he has approached this matter to date.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for a briefing yesterday. It meant that, temporarily, I was under a super-injunction. I was a little surprised when I was summoned to the MoD. On Monday afternoon I received a message asking me to come in for a confidential briefing. I had no idea what to expect, or of the magnitude of what we would hear in the Statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday.

It is a matter of extreme seriousness for a variety of reasons—the risk into which an official and the MoD placed Afghans who were already vulnerable, but also the fact that Parliament was entirely unable to scrutinise His Majesty’s Government on this issue for almost two years. The media reported immediately after the super-injunction was raised yesterday at midday; they had spent the last 22 months gathering evidence that, of course, they could not publish. There is a whole set of questions that are probably beyond the remit of the Minister who is responding today on behalf of the MoD, including what scrutiny Parliament is able to do and what the Government feel is appropriate regarding the media. Were the media being suppressed?

Lest anyone think that I am being cavalier about the lives of Afghans, it was absolutely clear that the United Kingdom had a duty to those Afghans who worked alongside His Majesty’s Armed Forces, including the interpreters and those who worked for the British Council. In light of that, the ARAP and ACRS schemes, which we all knew about, were the right approach. Yet we already knew, from open source material and cases that were brought to this House and the other place, that breaches of data had caused fines to be paid.

At the time of the evacuation of Afghanistan in August 2021, it was clear that many people were left behind, and that the helplines were not necessarily fit for purpose. The hotline for parliamentarians and their staff did not necessarily act as a hotline at all. I certainly left messages about cases and received no follow-up or reply. I was not alone in that and, although I believe that I was not part of this data breach, some parliamentarians were.

We began to acknowledge our debt to some of the Afghans, but not all. Then a data breach, about which we knew nothing, happened over three years ago. That in itself is shocking. Has anybody in His Majesty’s Government taken responsibility for that? We understand from the Statement that it was reported to the Metropolitan Police, which believed that there was no criminal activity. Has anybody taken responsibility for this catastrophic data breach that potentially put many tens of thousands of lives in Afghanistan at risk and caused considerable concern to Afghans who were already in the UK, having come over as part of the ARAP scheme?

The former Secretary of State, Sir Ben Wallace, has said that the super-injunction was not a cover-up, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. Yet Mr Justice Chamberlain, who finally lifted the super-injunction yesterday, said in November 2023 that a super-injunction

“is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court’s processes are being used for the purposes of censorship … This is corrosive of the public’s trust in Government”.

Does the Minister agree? Can he confirm that this Government would not seek to use a super-injunction or, in the event that it was felt that a super-injunction was an appropriate course of action, that it would not last for more than 600 days but could be for a very limited amount of time while a particular, specific policy needed to be undertaken? The substantive policy change that was brought in—the Afghanistan response route—seems to have been very sensible. Had it been brought to your Lordships’ House and the other place, parliamentarians may well have thought that it was the right policy and been happy to endorse it—but we were never asked, because of the super-injunction. We knew nothing about it.

Could the Minister tell us whether, in future, the Intelligence and Security Committee might be briefed in camera? What role would Parliament and the media be allowed to play? If the courts, Parliament and the media are not deployed appropriately, that raises questions about our own democracy that need to be considered.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their comments and their words about the way in which the Government tried to inform His Majesty’s Opposition and the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. We tried to ensure that as many Members of your Lordships’ House, as well as other people in the other place, were informed as appropriate. I apologise if that did not happen with everybody who may have expected to have been informed, but we tried to ensure that everybody was consulted and spoken to.

I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, in the apologies that His Majesty’s Government, through me, again make today for what happened, which was totally unacceptable.

Before I answer the specific questions, I shall make a couple of opening remarks. The whole House will agree that the UK owes a huge debt of gratitude to all those Afghans who fought alongside us and supported our efforts in Afghanistan. Although I appreciate that there is significant parliamentary and media concern around these issues, and rightly so, let us not also forget that we are talking about human lives.

As noble Lords will know, a major data loss occurred in February 2022, involving the dissemination of a spreadsheet containing names of applicants to the ARAP scheme. The previous Government responded by setting up a new assessment route—the Afghanistan response route—to protect the most at-risk individuals whose data was disseminated. The data, and the lives that sit behind them, were protected by an unprecedented super-injunction, which was granted by the High Court, based on the threat posed to those individuals. That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made: it is the court that grants an injunction, and when the Government asked for an injunction they were granted a super-injunction.

It is our view that the previous Government acted in good faith to protect lives. However, when this Government took office, Ministers felt deeply uncomfortable —to go to some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made—with the limits that the super-injunction placed on freedom of the press and parliamentary scrutiny. As a result, we therefore commissioned a reassessment of the situation, led by a former Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence, Paul Rimmer. Mr Rimmer, following a comprehensive review, found that it is

“unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting”

by the Taliban. He also found that there was no evidence pointing to Taliban possession of the dataset. We have therefore decided, as have the courts, that the risks have reduced, and that the existence of the scheme and its associated costs should be brought into the public and parliamentary realms for the appropriate scrutiny. Therefore, we expect and invite parliamentary scrutiny for these decisions.

I will deal with a couple of the points that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked me how this happened. I do not normally do this, as noble Lords know, but I will read out from my brief so that I get it factually right. In February 2022, under the previous Government, a spreadsheet with names of individual applicants for ARAP—the resettlement scheme for Afghan citizens who worked for or with the UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan—was emailed outside of official government systems. This was mistakenly thought to contain the names of a small number of applicants, but in fact the email contained personal information linked to 18,700 applicants of ARAP and its predecessor, the ex-gratia scheme, or EGS. The data related to applications made on or before 7 January 2022. A small section of this spreadsheet appeared online on 14 August 2023, which is when the then Government first became aware that the MoD’s ARAP casework and spreadsheet had been mistakenly included with the original email. The previous Government investigated that and a report was sent to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I repeat that the Government reported this to the Metropolitan Police, which found that there was no malicious or malign intent by the individual responsible.

The noble Baroness asked whether we believe that the systems have now been adequately changed. In a statement yesterday, the Information Commissioner’s Office said:

“We’re reassured that the MoD’s investigation has resulted in taking necessary steps and minimised the risk of this happening again”.


I hope that will begin to reassure the noble Baroness with respect to her point about how the leak happened, the measures that have been taken and the way it has been looked at and investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has now reported in a statement yesterday that it believes the MoD has, as far as it possibly can, taken the necessary action to prevent such a terrible and unfortunate incident happening again.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of course it is of great concern that parliamentary and media scrutiny had, essentially, to be stopped. Parliament and the press have not been able to scrutinise the activity and decisions in the way that they should. When we came into office, we were, fairly obviously, uncomfortable with that. We looked at the facts and the situation and, in January this year, as the noble Baroness will know, the Secretary of State asked Mr Rimmer, a former senior officer at Defence Intelligence, to investigate.

Noble Lords will have seen Mr Rimmer’s report. There are a number of important facts in its key conclusions, including that:

“No evidence points clearly to Taleban possession of the dataset”,


and the fact that the policy

“appears an extremely significant intervention, with not inconsiderable risk to HMG and the UK, to address the potentially limited net additional risk the incident likely presents”.

In other words, with where we are now, after the passage of time and the various assessments of the risk in Afghanistan, Mr Rimmer now believes that it is appropriate for the Government to apply to the court to lift the injunction. With the evidence provided in the Government’s presentation, it was lifted at Noon yesterday. The Government have decided that the time is right to make a Statement about what has happened, put as much of that evidence as possible into the public domain, and invite public, media and parliamentary scrutiny of it. That is the right thing to do.

At the end, in government, there is always a balance between making decisions about how to protect lives in a particular situation and recognising that you must have parliamentary and media scrutiny. The previous Government acted in good faith. We have looked at that again and believe that now is the right time for us to come forward, to publicise what happened and to invite comment from everyone. I hope noble Lords will accept that explanation.

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Grand Committee

So my plea as we move forward is this: can we please treat all of our uniformed personnel on the same basis? We should treat, at the start of the financial year, the funding for those individuals—in the case of the reserves, it can simply be one pot of gold that we can then carve up—as committed funding. Only if it is committed funding can we then say to the reservists that we genuinely value them and can guarantee them a certain amount of work this year; that will mean us being able to retain them.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am acutely aware that I am likely to be interrupted by the Bells.

The statutory instrument in front of us is one that we are very used to. I was listening to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and thinking that I am obviously very new to these annual events because I have been here only since 2014; you feel that you are getting older, as they seem to speed up every year. In many ways, there is little to be said on this Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order because, by definition, we all want our Armed Forces to continue. If Parliament did not approve the SI, we would still have Armed Forces, but they would not be subject to enforcement and so on. Inevitably, I wish this statutory instrument well; I also pay tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces and everything that they do for us.

As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out, the Minister seemed in his opening to be trialling his speech for the SDR on Friday; perhaps he is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will probably steal any thunder that any of us may feel we have. I think that it is a good thing to rehearse some of the SDR issues.

In the light of that and the Minister’s comments about forces accommodation, he has bandied around some figures but is he sure that the money will be wisely spent and that, at the end of this Parliament, he and any other defence Minister will be able to say that forces accommodation is now up to standard? We are about to have a Division, I believe, on decent home standards for His Majesty’s Armed Forces. We are told that the standard of forces accommodation meets decent home standards, yet the feedback is so often that there is black mould and there are all sorts of questions about the accommodation. What security and confidence can the Minister give us on that?

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, also reminded us that the last time we had an Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order, we discussed— I was part of the discussion, and I have raised this matter on several occasions—bringing the Armed Forces covenant under the purview of central government and making central government accountable. Like the noble and gallant Lord, I welcome the Government’s commitments on this and wonder when we can expect to find out more about them. As promised, here is the Division.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, as all noble Lords are back, we may as well resume.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in finishing, I want to reinforce the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and ask not for more money for His Majesty’s Armed Forces—not least because this statutory instrument does not allow us to do that—but for the Minister and the MoD to think about making sure that our Armed Forces personnel are fully covered. A lot of the wording around numbers in the SDR says “when the financial circumstances arise”, but our Armed Forces are the bedrock of our security and defence. We should put them first in everything we do.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her impeccable judgment on timing, which worked very neatly. As she said, it seems that, every year, this comes round sooner than the year before; it is a bit like how policemen are getting younger. Anyway, here we are to approve the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for another year.

Apart from the necessary attention to legal process, this is a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to and thank our Armed Forces personnel for the incredible work that they do on our behalf. Some of those to whom we perhaps do not pay sufficient tribute are the ranks of talented civil servants over there—they were of enormous support to me when I was a Minister—so we should extend our thanks for the support that the MoD gives to both the political process and our Armed Forces personnel. I thank the Minister for opening the debate on the order and echo his praise for our men and women in uniform.

This debate provides an important opportunity to reflect on the previous year in defence. Over the past year, we have seen the international security environment deteriorate further. Russia is continuing its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Iran has become emboldened to lash out. Iranian-backed Houthis from Yemen sank two ships in the Red Sea just this month, and the conflict in Israel and Gaza is showing few signs of abating.

Currently, the carrier strike group, led by the fleet flagship HMS “Prince of Wales”, is in the South China Sea, reinforcing our global reach and maintaining freedom of navigation. As a country, we can take pride in the professionalism of our Royal Navy sailors doing so much to stand up for our country globally.

We have seen ever more harrowing attacks on Ukraine by Russia. Increased use of drones has meant that, as of 31 May 2025, 13,341 Ukrainians have been killed and 32,744 have been injured in Putin’s illegal war. The Government are to be commended for their continued, resolute commitment to aid Ukraine in repelling Russian aggression. With the recent announcements of the coalition of the willing, which has the best wishes of these Benches, we hope that further progress can be made on ending the war.

As my noble friend Lord Minto and I have said, we welcome the broad direction of the strategic defence review. I know that we will have a fuller debate on that matter on Friday, so I shall not delay the Grand Committee by dwelling on it. Suffice to say that, while I genuinely welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that much more must be done to bolster our defence capabilities, I shall have a number of questions arising out of the SDR, but the Minister will have to contain his excitement as to what those questions are until Friday.

I was very struck by what my noble friend Lord Lancaster said about the reserves, given his profound knowledge of them and his own military experience. He raised a number of interesting points, which I confess had not previously occurred to me, but I think are substantive. As we live in a new threat environment, with increasing need for resilience and swiftness of response, they are very well-made points, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on them.

What I would like to stress at the moment applies to the Northern Ireland veterans. The Minister was helpful last week when he said that there would be a Statement soon on this matter, which is a welcome development; we might finally know what the Government are planning with regard to the legacy Act. I might point out that I did not get an answer to the question that I asked last Monday: does the Minister think that recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces will be aided by constantly relitigating cases where veterans were simply doing their jobs? The recent case of Soldier C—who has already faced multiple investigations and been cleared each time but has now been told as a very elderly man that he may face another investigation and possible prosecution—is more than egregious. I do not expect the Minister to comment on media commentary that the Minister for Veterans and People, the honourable Mr Al Carns, is allegedly deeply unhappy about possible changes to the legacy Act, but it underlines the need for urgent clarity by the Government as to their position.

On the issue of retention and recruitment, we all know how much service accommodation requires improvement. My right honourable friend in the other place, James Cartlidge, when a Minister in the MoD, began the process of buying back the estate from Addington Homes, to which the Minister referred. This was the first step in resuming control by the MoD over living conditions. But that work is not yet complete, and the next step requires further structural innovation and change and further investment. That is why my right honourable friend has launched his policy of instituting an Armed Forces housing association, where our service personnel would be part of the association governance, to better meet the needs and listen to the voices of our service men and women. I hope that the Government consider that a constructive proposal.

Finally, it would be remiss of me if I did not continue to push the Minister on the money. We know that the Government have decided to shift spending on intelligence to the definition of defence spending but, so far, it is not quite clear exactly how much of that intelligence spending will be redefined as defence expenditure. Could the Minister enlighten the Grand Committee on that point? Does the Minister have full confidence that the Government will be able to reach the new NATO defence spending targets?

I look forward to the Minister’s response but, of course, confirm that these Benches support the statutory instrument to keep the Armed Forces Act current in law.

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Earl for the ironclad commitment that His Majesty’s Opposition have just given to the strategic nuclear deterrent. That is the most important point that has been made today, and I thank him for that. The co-operation between all of us on that has been a source of strength to this country for many decades and will continue.

On the question of funding, the Government make it absolutely clear they will fund the nuclear deterrent. On the Dreadnought successor programme to Vanguard, we have made commitments to the four submarines, and noble Lords have seen the Statement about the nuclear warhead programme. I remind the noble Earl that, in 2015, the last Government put a package out of £31 billion for the nuclear modernisation programme with a £10 billion contingency, and I can confirm that the budget is within those parameters.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Urgent Question asked in the other place came from the chair of the Defence Committee. It came because there was speculation in the press that the SDR would propose not just renewing the continuous at-sea deterrent, which from these Benches we also support, but a move to a second platform for nuclear deterrence; that appears not to be the case. How does the Minister think such speculation came about? Would it not have been better if, rather than floating the SDR to the press, it came first to the other place and your Lordships’ House and we could have avoided unnecessary speculation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the issue of nuclear weapons and the point that the noble Baroness makes, I will read the following for the purpose of clarity because she makes an important point. Neither the UK nor NATO talks about nuclear weapons being tactical. Any use of nuclear weapons would fundamentally change the nature of a conflict. I can say that the UK continues to view its nuclear deterrent as a political tool rather than a war-fighting capability, and it will remain the case that none of the UK’s nuclear weapons is designed for tactical use.

Diego Garcia Military Base

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, this is an extremely important Statement concerning the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. I begin by expressing my disappointment with the Government’s handling of the timing of this announcement. This is a matter of national security and territorial integrity, and this decision directly affects how our country is perceived on the international stage. To slip in an unscheduled Statement moments before these Houses rose for Recess shows a disregard for Members in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. Matters of this significance deserve to be discussed, and the Government’s actions scrutinised, in good time, and it is my view that the Government timed their announcement to disrupt that duty of scrutiny, despite efforts made the Official Opposition to raise this question on parliamentary time on the Thursday before Recess. I hope that the Minister can start his response by addressing this question.

The Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place was effusive in highlighting the importance of the Diego Garcia base. He said:

“For more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has been a launchpad to defeat terrorists, to prevent threats to our nation, and to protect our economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad”.


Can the Minister explain why, given that this is the Government’s latest assessment, they are surrendering that very same British sovereign territory to a foreign power—a power that only recently has agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia?

Once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained. The text of the treaty also includes the provision that the UK must

“expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia”.

Does the Minister believe that it is in the interests of our national security to share advance information on military operations with third countries? Can he promise that this information, which we are now obliged to share with Mauritius, will never be shared with China, Iran or Russia, with whom the Mauritians are becoming increasingly friendly?

I, like many other noble Lords—and honourable Members in the other place—took exception to the comments of the Prime Minister during his press conference. He said that those of us who oppose the deal are on the same side as Russia and China. That is not only deeply offensive but entirely false. Just last week, we saw news reports of China’s ambassador to Mauritius hailing this deal as a “massive achievement” for Mauritius and then confirming that China would welcome it into the belt and road initiative. It is vividly apparent that, contrary to the Government’s claims, Mauritius is becoming ever more under the influence of China. It is no surprise that China welcomes this deal; it plays right into its strategy of weakening western democracies and hobbling our abilities to operate internationally.

Over the weekend, noble Lords will also have considered the renewed US views on China’s intentions towards Taiwan as context. Has the Minister considered how this treaty makes us look on the world stage? The Prime Minister has signed an agreement which will surrender a strategically vital resource to a foreign Government. He has also, it appears, committed us to sharing military information with that same Government, who show increasing signs of support for our enemies. The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have both argued that this agreement is necessary to safeguard our ability to operate from the Diego Garcia military base, in the face of legal challenges. However, the legal case is entirely opaque. Noble Lords will know that this all stems from a non-binding advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, a court which counts among its number a Chinese judge who is a member of the Chinese Communist Party and who voted against condemning Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

We also know that the International Telecommunication Union does not have the power to issue binding rulings against the UK in respect of the base on Diego Garcia, and it is unclear whether a case would be brought against us in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Even if it had done so, it would have been a case that we could have opposed and appealed. Everyone seems to agree that the British Indian Ocean Territory is a critically important asset, not just to the UK but, by direct or indirect association, to all our allies.

To crown it all, we are paying for the privilege of surrendering our own territory. The Government, to the incredulity of Members across both Houses and people throughout the country, hail this as a success. In reality, I can find no positive report of this chosen route in any media or other channel not linked to China. Does the Minister honestly believe that this is a good deal that benefits the United Kingdom? When he responds in a moment, can he say with his hand on his heart that handing the Mauritians £30 billion over 99 years to lose one of our vital strategic assets is something that we should welcome and be proud of?

The Minister will be well aware that those payments are front-loaded. The agreement laid before Parliament states that, for the first three years, the United Kingdom will pay Mauritius £165 million per year, then £120 million for each of the next 10 years and an additional £45 million every year from year one for infrastructure improvements in Mauritius. That is for the next 25 years, which means that, over the next five years, we will be paying Mauritius £1 billion.

Let me put that into a defence context. £1 billion could pay for 10 new F35 Lightnings, 30 Apache attack helicopters, 125 Boxer armoured fighting vehicles, or an entire Type 26 frigate—which must rankle with the noble Lord, Lord West, among many others.

Given that the strategic defence review, revealed yesterday, contained 62 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Government, and at a time when the Chancellor is warning of additional tax rises and spending cuts, does the Minister not agree that a far better use could be found for this money? Can the Minister tell us exactly how this will be funded? Can he help the House to understand how the obligations to the British people are being fulfilled by pursuing this deal at the taxpayer’s expense? More importantly—and this is a simple question requiring a yes or no answer—will this money be paid out of the defence budget? If so, how can the Minister justify that, given the Government have spent the last few months attempting to talk up their increase in the defence budget?

This agreement must make the United Kingdom less secure, weaker on the global stage and at greater risk than under the current status quo. There are good deals and not so good deals. One of the key skills in deciding to complete a deal or not is knowing when it is wiser to withdraw than continue, and that is exactly what the previous Government did.

We should be mindful of the critical fact that, once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained. It is also somewhat ironic that, as the Government announce their strategic defence review on the one hand, they are wilfully disposing with the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory on the other, along with significant amounts of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.

Finally, but just as importantly, what of the Chagossian community, which is already widely displaced? A one-off token payment of £40 million to assist resettlement and readjustment to an unknown and distant sovereign power—and its intentions—in the light of the overall magnitude of the Mauritian gains, both territorial and financial, seems almost derisory. Can the Minister advise the House how this sum is to be allocated, tracked and ensured, for the benefit of all Chagossians?

Noble Lords will be aware of the Motion against ratification of the treaty, tabled by my noble friend Lord Callanan. Let me be clear: we do not do this lightly, but this arrangement poses such harm to our nation and, indeed, international security, and is such a flagrant violation of the rights of the Chagossian community, that we feel it our duty to bring this fatal Motion to the House. We hope noble Lords across the House will weigh the agreement carefully and support our Motion. This deal cannot be the right thing for our country to do.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I find myself in a rather unusual position. On most defence issues, it is very easy for the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson to agree with the Official Opposition, and to find that the Minister will also be saying very similar things. On most issues, we find ourselves saying how vital the defence of the realm is, and that we are broadly on the same page, with a few minor differences.

On this issue, however, there seems to be such a clear difference of opinion between the Official Opposition and the Government Benches that I will ask only a few clarificatory questions for those of us who are not Privy Councillors, have not been briefed on Privy Council terms and are therefore unable to express the effusive views on the importance of Diego Garcia that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, mentioned the Secretary of State had expressed. For anyone who read the Statement delivered in the other place just before Recess, the Secretary of State was indeed crystal clear about the importance of Diego Garcia to the security of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State particularly made the point that the deal is vital because we retain control over Diego Garcia, but he also pointed out how important it is as a joint US-UK military base. So what role does the United States play on Diego Garcia? I realise that the Minister may feel that this is privileged information that he is not able to articulate in open session, but we need to understand what is going on with our relationship with the US in this regard.

The noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that the only people who are really in favour of this are the Chinese, yet the Secretary of State pointed out that none other than Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump have said that this is a “very long-term” and “very strong” deal. So whose interests is it in? Is it in the UK’s national interest or is it primarily about the US’s interest?

Finally—because I want to give the Minister time to reply—this deal has apparently been two and a half years in the making. His Majesty’s Government have been in office for only 11 months. That means that, for over a year and a half, the negotiations were under the Conservative Government. What has changed between the two Governments to make one party now think that this is a vital deal, and the other implacably opposed?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his comments and the articulate way in which he presented an opinion that I do not agree with. But that is the point of scrutiny and that is the point I am making back to the noble Earl. Whatever the process is, that he could stand here so that we can debate this—and others will debate it—is important to democracy and the way our country works. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her comments.

The Government’s position is quite clear: none of us disagrees that Diego Garcia is of huge significance and importance to the geopolitical security of us and our allies, in particular the United States. The discussion is about the best way of securing that base for the future. The Opposition’s point of view is that there is no legal jeopardy, that we can carry on ignoring the ICJ’s judgment, because it was just advisory, and that we may reach a point when a binding judgment is made. The question then becomes whether we ignore only binding agreements, if we get to them.

That was clearly what the previous Government were wrestling with. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it is clearly why, at some point, officials and Ministers under the previous Government—under Rishi Sunak if not before—decided that they needed to negotiate and discuss the future of the Diego Garcia base with Mauritius. Otherwise, what was the point of those negotiations? Were they just a delaying tactic: “We’ll just negotiate and pretend that we’re discussing something when we don’t mean it”. I can see the noble Earl’s noble friend shaking his head, but the consequence of what the noble Earl said is that the previous Government were negotiating with a country with no intention of coming to any agreement. I do not believe that. As much as I do not agree with much of what the last Government did, I do not believe that the lack of integrity in Ministers or officials was such that they would have done that. So I believe that negotiations were going on about the best way forward, and this Government have come to the conclusion that there is judicial or legal jeopardy in allowing the situation to continue.

I will try to cut my remarks short to make sure that Back-Benchers get a proper opportunity. We negotiated a treaty, which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny when it comes before Parliament to be debated. That treaty guarantees, with many conditions, the security of Diego Garcia. Our international partners are far from disagreeing. I will read what Secretary Hegseth said for the noble Baroness—and yes, the US is a really important partner for us on Diego Garcia. Of course it is. We work really closely with the US on this, and we make no apology for that.

Pete Hegseth said:

“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region”.


Secretary Rubio said:

“Today, the United States welcomed the historic agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory—specifically, the Chagos Archipelago”.


Canada said:

“Canada welcomes the signing of the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty agreement”.


Australia said:

“Australia welcomes the signing of the historic agreement between the UK and Mauritius”.


I will tell the House what I would do if I were China: I would say what a brilliant agreement it is to sow confusion, upset people and cause people to debate it. I will tell the House what I want: I want this country and our allies to determine what we should do and to tell China that we are going to act in what we consider to be our own interests, irrespective of what it might say to try to disrupt us.

New Zealand said:

“As a strong supporter of the international rules-based system, New Zealand welcomes the agreement”.


India said:

“We welcome the signing of the treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius”.


So, far from us being an international pariah because we have signed this agreement, many of the most important countries in that region have welcomed the deal because it confirms the security of that base.

We are worried about the law of the sea. The noble Earl asked about that situation. We do not have to share information about actions taken from Diego Garcia in advance of us taking any action. I say that on the record because the noble Earl specifically asked me about it. We do not have to let Mauritius know in advance about it and then potentially share that information.

The Government Actuary says that the cost of the treaty arrangements is £3.4 billion over the lifetime of the treaty. If the noble Earl and others want to take issue, let them argue with the Government Actuary, because that is the way that all Governments throughout the past few decades have costed government projects in this sense, so we are not changing that or moving any goalposts.

The noble Earl talked about the Chagossians. This was a UK-Mauritius state treaty discussion, but the Chagossian community itself is not united in its response. On 22 May, two prominent Chagossian groups—the Chagos Refugees Group and the Chagossian Committee Seychelles—said that they regretted the legal action that aimed to halt what could be a landmark agreement that serves the long-term interests of Chagossians as a whole. That is Chagossians commenting on this agreement.

The argument I put on behalf of the Government is that, far from undermining the base’s sovereignty in terms of its operational independence, and our ability to use Diego Garcia in the way we would all want—to protect our national security and defend our global interests—we have negotiated a treaty that is subject to parliamentary approval, which gives it the scrutiny the noble Earl would like, strengthened it and ensured that we protect our national interests and those of our friends and allies, including the US.

Strategic Defence Review

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, first, I add to the widespread praise that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, General Sir Richard Barrons and Dr Hill have rightly received for leading and delivering this comprehensive and thorough strategic defence review document. It is indeed a transformational and genuinely strategic review and goes into great depth as to the purpose, intention and delivery of the defence of our nation and our interests abroad in its widest sense. Their emphasis that as a nation, and a proud one at that, we need the entire people of these islands to share, comprehend and be openly supportive of defence and all that we expect of our brave and committed Armed Forces is a point extremely well made. I also thank the Minister for taking the time to meet me yesterday prior to publication of the review. It was much appreciated.

As technological advance changes defence and our preparedness at a frightening pace, it is absolutely right that the entire country supports and has a broad understanding of what the future might hold. The review proposes some 62 recommendations, all of which the Government have accepted, and a number of which have already been in progress from the previous Administration. However, as the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in the other place, the world we live in now contains novel threats that are arguably more dangerous than we have ever faced before. As the spectre of Putin’s Russia looms over Europe’s eastern flanks, we can no longer take peace for granted. The case for transformation is both compelling and immediate.

It is in that vein that we on these Benches welcome the contents of the review: the commitments to continuing the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine programme, to GCAP, to increasing munitions production and to stockpiling are all most positive steps. However, I have a number of concerns. The first, I am sure, will come as no surprise to the Minister: there has been much consternation as to the correct level of funding required, but it is evident that the Overton window on defence spending is shifting rapidly. We on these Benches welcome the Government’s announcement that they will increase the Ministry of Defence budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. However, the recommendations in the review all come with a price tag, and the authors were clear that the plan is really affordable only if and when the Government commit to 3%.

As of yet, the Government’s messaging has appeared rather mixed, to put it politely. Most confusing were the Defence Secretary’s comments this morning on “BBC Breakfast” that the Government have an ambition to reach 3% by 2034, then that he was 100% confident that 3% was achievable in the next Parliament and then that reaching 3% was predicated on economic growth. It appears that all the Government have given are vague statements that—in the fullness of time, in due course, when conditions allow and at the appropriate juncture—they may raise defence spending to the 3% required. It is surely a position that Sir Humphrey would be thrilled with, so can the Minister confirm that all the recommendations in the review can be paid for in full within the current spending limits?

That becomes even more important when we consider the recent overtures from NATO. We have seen today that the Secretary-General will strongly push member states to bolster their budgets to 3.5% annually, plus 1.5% for defence infrastructure. The Danish Prime Minister has stated that waiting until the 2030s to boost defence spending will be “too late”, and the former Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders, has said that he is “really worried” that the Government are not acting fast enough on defence. Can the Minister confirm that the UK will follow NATO’s likely new targets when they are set at the Hague summit?

I have two further observations. First, there appears to be a slight lack of focus on amphibious capabilities. In fact, there are only three mentions of the word “amphibious” in the document. Given that the Government have scrapped HMS “Bulwark” and “Albion”, thereby leaving the Royal Navy with no landing platform docks and relying solely on the Bay class ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, ships that themselves are ageing rapidly, can the Minister provide further clarity on the future of the UK’s amphibious capabilities?

Secondly, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I would have hoped for further measures on the reform of the structures within the Ministry of Defence. There is no doubt in my mind, from the albeit limited time that I served there, that there is considerable scope for streamlining, updating and commercialising large components of the overall modus operandi. In my view, the MoD has outdated views and practices, particularly in the areas of risk management, the concept of change and commercial imperative, that restrict the productivity and effectiveness of such a critical and large organisation.

Page 65 of the document mentions the increasing use of AI within the MoD to enable the department to redeploy staff currently working in finance, human resources and commercial functions, thereby aiming to reduce the Civil Service costs by 10%. That is of course a positive step, although perhaps a little unambitious, but it also states that the focus should be on productivity rather than headcount. Given that the MoD civilian personnel headcount was 61,706 as of 1 April 2025, almost as large as the British Army itself, is there not a compelling case for looking at how we might streamline the Civil Service radically within the Ministry of Defence?

Further, the review calls for the creation of a number of newly formatted bodies: a defence investors’ advisory group, a defence innovation organisation and a defence research and evaluation organisation. My concern here is that these new bodies could simply add to the already intricate web of overlapping and competing organisations and agencies of the MoD, thereby confusing the structure rather than enhancing it.

As the Minister knows well, many additions are made for valid reasons, but rarely are existing structures dismantled to make way for innovation. For example, we already have the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which was split from the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in 2001, with responsibilities for advanced technological research. How will the new defence innovation organisation and defence research and evaluation organisation fit in with DSTL? We must ensure that there is no duplication of functions if we are to have, as the review sets out, a policy of “one defence”. The critically creative work undertaken by DSTL needs as much freedom from interference as possible for it to flourish and deliver exception.

I have a final question for the Minister. Given the importance of the review and the significance of its recommendations, I hope the Government will provide time for a full debate on the strategic defence review to allow the House to fully consider the UK’s vital new strategy for defence. The challenge now is how to fund it in full to fulfil the hopes and expectations of the reviewers and the contributors to the limit.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I start where the noble Earl, Lord Minto, finished by suggesting that it would be extremely welcome for your Lordships’ House to have a full debate on the strategic defence review. It is a full, thorough and detailed review that merits detailed reading. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team have clearly put in a huge amount of work, and it would repay noble Lords and the Armed Forces if we were able to explore at least some of the 62 recommendations in detail.

The review gives many recommendations, some of which have been trailed but some have not, and which are sometimes much more complicated than we might imagine. There are commitments to our Armed Forces, to recruitment and retention and to increasing the number of the reserves. That is the headline, but the detail of the recommendations says that we should increase the size of the reserves “when funding allows”. That gets back to the fundamental question raised by the noble Earl: 2.5% is not going to take us far enough. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to enable us to implement the 62 recommendations. assuming that the other place and your Lordships’ House, after due scrutiny, agree with the Government that all 62 recommendations should be implemented?

There is clearly a need for a lot of detailed scrutiny because many issues are raised in the review, starting with the essential context that the world has changed a lot since the start of the post-Cold War era, and indeed since the start of the review. Many issues need to be thought about, some of which we have had the opportunity to think about over months and years while others have been floated recently. As the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out at Questions, the commitment to the nuclear deterrent is obviously important and welcome. I was expecting to see the noble Lord, Lord West, here to take up the discussions on the future of sea capabilities; the transformation of the carriers is presumably something on which he could run a Question for Short Debate by himself.

There are many detailed questions about capabilities and procurement but also about transitions—for example, the upgraded Typhoons. Are we sending back the existing Typhoons for an upgrade or procuring more of them and keeping the production of the Typhoon going, pending the introduction of Tempest? There are a lot of questions about procurement that are worth considering.

There are also questions not just about the headline figure of 2.5% of spending but about savings. On page 5, there is a suggestion that £6 billion of new savings will be found, and then there is talk of spending £11 billion. Does the £11 billion include the £6 billion that has just been found from savings and is now being recycled, or is the £11 billion new money? There are a lot of issues that would probably merit longer than the Minister will have for his response today.

There is one welcome point in terms of recruitment. It is very welcome that a little bit of recommendation 16 suggests that the medical requirements will differ from role to role, because that has clearly been part of the recruitment difficulty. That is very welcome, as are the commitments to improving accommodation and the defence industrial base. There are many more questions than I have time to ask and the Minister has time to answer, but we welcome the review and look forward to working with the Government over the next decade and beyond.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their contributions and their overall general welcome for the review. I turn to my noble friend Lord Robertson and say how fantastic the report is and how professionally he has conducted himself with the experience he has brought to bear on this.

The contribution that my noble friend, General Barrons and Fiona Hill have made is not only to the report but to the overall effectiveness of the security of our nation, the security of our allies and the pursuance of the goals that we all hold dear. That is something that, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, is shared across this House. Many congratulations to him for that.

I take on board the points that both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness made. It is not a matter for me in terms of a day’s debate or whatever, but I will ensure that that point is made to my noble friend Lord Kennedy, the Chief Whip. I am sure the usual channels can consider that so that we may get the opportunity to discuss this in more detail.

Before I deal with some of the detailed points that have been raised, I will say that what is really important about this debate, which is why perhaps we need longer, is that different Members of this House will have different points they will wish to make about the report and the review. There is a debate about funding but the overall direction of travel this sets out for us is something that this place and the country can get behind. We face the new geopolitical challenges of today, the state-on-state threat that we thought had gone. We are now in a new age. We need to reconfigure our Armed Forces in a way which meets that challenge. We need to look at homeland defence. We need to look at the reserves. We need to look at the new threats such as those to underwater cables and underwater technology. We need to look at the threats that cyber presents to us. We need to look at how we protect the critical national infrastructure of our country. We need to look at the alliances we can build, not only in Europe but across the globe.

There is one thing laid out in the report and the review which is really important as we discuss this. It sets out that, yes, this is a NATO-first policy—it sees Europe as the priority for the defence and security of our nation—but it also says it is not a NATO-only policy. It recognises the political and geopolitical contexts in other parts of the world where we have a responsibility as well. I just say to my noble friend Lord Robertson and those who have contributed to this report that I think the direction of travel is the really important thing for us to discuss, and there are many points that many of us could make.

To address some of those points, it is quite right for the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to point to AUKUS and the development of that—the commitment of up to 12 additional nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS development and the AUKUS treaty. Time and again I was asked in this House about the commitment to GCAP. GCAP is maintained in that.

On the munitions stockpile, time and again many of us have thought about the way in which Ukraine, which has been a wake-up call for us, has led to the situation where we have not had sufficient stockpiles. The report lays out £6 billion for that, of which £1.5 billion will contribute to six new munitions factories. I have already had discussions about who in private industry may work with that and others have had discussions as well. All of that is taking place.

On funding, there will be debates and no doubt question after question will be that it is not sufficient—the demand to have 3.5% at NATO. If some other noble Lords were here, they would be demanding 4%. What about the 5% that they have heard President Trump may want? All I can say is that the Government’s policy is well known in this House. It is 2.5% by April 2027, with the ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament. All the things in the report from my noble friend Lord Robertson and others have been brought about with the understanding that that is the financial envelope within which that works.

On some of the other questions, we are committed to amphibious capabilities. The noble Earl will know that we have the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships which provide that at the moment. He will know that fleet support ships will be built in Belfast to help support that. He will also know that the new First Sea Lord, with his background, will ensure that there is no shortage of amphibious capability, which will be important as well.

The noble Earl talked about reform within the Ministry of Defence. He will know just alongside this that defence reform has seen the creation of a military arm headed by the CDS, who is now in charge of all the service chiefs; the department of state; the new national armaments directorate, which will try to deliver the procurement savings and the more effective delivery that the noble Earl quite rightly points out are needed; and the nuclear arm as well.

The use of AI is another area that the report mentioned, and the use of that with the research that will be available to it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked whether the noble Lord, Lord West, was here. I am sure he would welcome the carriers and the suggestion in the report, which I think is a really good one, that carriers are adapted to that hybrid-type platform which not only allows jets to take off but has all sorts of autonomous capability both above and below the sea to operate off that, with missiles able to be fired. I think that is a use of the carriers. If noble Lords remember, there was some discussion about all of those, so I think that is a really good suggestion.

On recruitment and retention, many noble Lords have talked about the need for more in the Army. They will have seen the Secretary of State’s point that our ambition is to increase the Army to 76,000. But we cannot, as it stands, get the number of regular soldiers that are budgeted for. We have just over 70,000—70,500, I think I am right in saying—when the target figure is 73,600. The recruitment and retention points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, points to are crucial if we are to deliver that. Some of the changes we have brought about—pay, accommodation, housing, childcare —seek to address that point. There are so many other issues around reserves and all that sort of thing which may come, quite rightly, from noble Lords, who will question how we are going to achieve those things.

I finish by saying that this House can unite around the fact that we have had an excellent report from my noble friend Lord Robertson, which sets out a direction of travel. There will be debate and discussion within that report as to what the correct balance is, what should be funded, what perhaps should be given a greater priority. We have accepted all those 62 recommendations. We are delighted with the way that the report sets out for us a sense of where this country can go in terms of establishing Armed Forces who fight the battles of today and the future and not those of the past. In that way, we can defend our democracy, defend our continent and stand up for our interests globally. As such, I think we should unite behind it.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I extend our gratitude to the Minister and his team for the courtesy and time they have extended to discuss some of the issues that we raised at various stages of the Bill. In particular, it is appropriate at this time to welcome the role of the commissioner but also to note that one of the aims is to move on from the ombudsperson. At various stages of the Bill, we talked about different categories of service personnel who might have issues that the commissioner would look into. One set would be LGBT+ service personnel, and at this stage, I pay tribute to the late Lord Etherton for the work that he put in to reviewing the situation of LGBT service personnel in the past. We very much hope that the incoming Armed Forces commissioner, once this legislation passes, will not have to look at such difficult situations in the future. Again, I thank the Minister; I thank the Liberal Democrat Whip’s Office, including Mohamed-Ali Souidi, and wish the Bill well.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that it is in order to take 60 seconds to thank the Minister for the way he has conducted himself throughout the Bill. From the very beginning, it was clear that Members interested were invited to understand the nature of the Bill. I very much hope it will make a difference, but it is a very good Bill—and the fact that I grew to have a personal interest in it is neither here nor there. This is a very good step forward, and I wish it well.

80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Friday 9th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to be one of the winders in this debate, a debate that is of huge significance as a reminder of what has happened in the last 80 years, what happened in the years before World War II, and the issues that we need think about in 2025.

The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, talked about the importance of personal stories. We have heard today so many personal stories of very different types, most recently from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, whose personal stories were incredibly interesting and help us think about how we respond to some of the other contributions today. My noble friend Lord Wallace asked how we find a way of talking to young people about World War II. We are getting to the point, as several noble Lords have said, when there will no nobody who fought in World War II left to celebrate future commemorations.

Unlike, I think, almost anybody else speaking in the debate today, as a child my parents never talked about the war. They did not ever suggest that I watch Remembrance Sunday. Yet, somehow, I would run home from mass on Remembrance Sunday because I wanted to watch the service from the Cenotaph—I do not know what drew me to it. In those days, there were still veterans from World War I parading; now there are very few even from World War II. What do we need to do to help young people understand not just the past but the present—and the importance of peace for our generation and beyond?

My noble friend Lord Wallace talked about education, as did my noble friend Lady Benjamin. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, rightly challenged us to think about not just British service personnel, not just what we did on the home front, but the support and the actions given by our Commonwealth friends, particularly those from the Caribbean. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, talked about Commonwealth contributions, as did the noble Lord, Lord Boateng and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. They all reminded us of the contributions that have been made by the Commonwealth.

The noble Lord, Lord Sahota, reminded us that we need to think about those who volunteered to work with the British Army, because it is so easy, when we commemorate VE Day, to think about Europe but very much from a British perspective. The Commonwealth mattered. Without our Commonwealth partners and allies, could we have won the war on our own? It is vital that we remember the contributions not just of British service personnel but of those from the Commonwealth, and to think about whom we were fighting with and whom we were fighting against.

This week, the first week of May, is a week of many commemorations. In the Netherlands, the celebration was on 5 May. In the United Kingdom, we celebrate on 8 May. The United States would normally be celebrating victory in Europe as well, but I read earlier in the week that perhaps Donald Trump now prefers to think simply about victory, losing the sense that the transatlantic relationship mattered vitally in World War I and in World War II. I hope that the United States remembers that. We certainly do, and it is vital that as we think about the future, we still work closely with our partners and allies in the United States.

We are celebrating VE80—the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe. We might have celebrated the 75th anniversary had it not been for Covid. If we had been celebrating in 2020, “celebration” would probably have been the correct word. We may also have said “commemoration”. Would we have talked about “re-membering”, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, suggested? I am not so sure.

In 2025, on the 80th anniversary, we cannot simply think about what happened when the allies won, when we had peace in Europe, and a few months later, victory over Japan, because in the last three years we have seen the global situation change dramatically. The Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine in February 2022, the terrorist attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023 and the current situation in Kashmir mean that the world in 2025 is unstable and uncertain.

Yesterday, my new leader—I am a Roman Catholic —Pope Leo, on being elected, suggested that evil will not prevail, and he wished us all peace. In the beautiful service yesterday in Westminster Abbey, the Gospel reading also reminded us, “Blessed are the peacemakers”, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York stressed the importance of peace. That is clearly what we all hope for, yet in 2025 we cannot just assume that peace will prevail.

Those of who grew up in post-war Europe assumed for much of the post-war period that the future would be peaceful. Today, 9 May, is the 75th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. That was intended to make war among signatory states, particularly France and Germany, materially impossible. For many years now—over 70 years—war between the signatory states of what were the European Communities has looked to be materially and in every other way impossible.

But war in Europe has not gone away. We saw it in the 1990s in Bosnia, a conflict which I do not think has been mentioned today. There are mothers in Bosnia who are still looking for the limbs of their children who were killed during the war. So, war never went away in Europe, but in the last few years we have begun to realise the significance of peace and rebuilding security in our own region, with the war in Ukraine.

Several noble Lords have stressed the importance of defence expenditure. I realise that the debate today is being wound from the Government Front Benches by the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, not by a Minister from the MoD, but I very much hope that she will take the message that has come from across the Chamber of the importance of understanding that, if we want peace, we nevertheless need to take defence seriously.

As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his excellent opening remarks pointed out, in 1938 we would not have been ready to take on Hitler—we would not have been capable of doing so. I echo the words of many noble Lords that defence expenditure needs to be increased and pick up on the point that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised, about the possibility of a European defence mechanism. As we prepare for what will hopefully be the next 80 years of peace, we need to do so in close collaboration with our nearest partners and allies, on this side of the Atlantic, this side of the Channel and beyond.

Today we commemorate victory in Europe, but we also need to be vigilant to ensure that we retain peace in Europe and can move forward, so that our children and young people can learn about war as history, not as the present.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “law” insert “, individuals engaged in the recruitment process for the armed forces (as defined by section (Use of the Commissioner)),”

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will be very pleased to hear that I intend neither to speak for very long nor to divide the House on my amendment. However, I will press the Government for some clarity about a group of people whose interests are extremely important: those going through the recruitment process to become members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces. The amendment therefore seeks to expand very slightly the scope of the Armed Forces commissioner to include not people who wander into an Army recruitment centre and say, “I am interested in joining”, but people who have submitted applications and might be going through the recruitment process.

My understanding, from my honourable friend in the other place, Helen Maguire, is that it is still possible that people going through the recruitment process might be required to stay overnight. In those circumstances, there may be times when people feel that they are subject to abuse, bullying or the sorts of issues that they might need to complain about. On the face of it, it would appear to be appropriate that such people would come under the purview of the Armed Forces commissioner.

If the Minister cannot accept my amendment, would he be able to explain to the House what recourse people going through the recruitment process might have? If it is not through the commissioner, are there other ways for people to raise concerns? If they can do so, is it made clear to people how they can put in complaints? A frequent concern is that individuals do not necessarily know how to make representations. That is obviously a matter for people going through the recruitment process, as well as a wider issue that members of the Armed Forces face, and we may well come back to it when we discuss other amendments. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to which Amendment 1 is linked; I will speak only extremely briefly because she has made the case very well.

I will link this amendment to my Amendment 8, which we will get to later. As the Minister well knows, it relates to my concern about 16 and 17 year-olds—or even 15 year-olds—being recruited into the Armed Forces. The noble Baroness spoke about people in residential situations, but if a 15, 16 or 17 year-old, who has decided that their whole future is in the military, finds that the assessment process operates in a way that is—we would hope that this would not happen, but we need to consider the possibility—abusive or inappropriate in some way, it is important that that person has protection.

I am particularly thinking of—although not solely—those 15, 16 or 17 year-olds who are vulnerable people, and who pin their whole future life on what happens to them in those few days or during a specific test. It is really important that they have the protection that we all want the Armed Forces commissioner to be able to provide to members of the military. I believe that these prospective members of the military should fall within—an often-used phrase—the military family.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

They certainly are, but I hope that there is some clarification from what I said to the noble Lord. No doubt that conversation will continue.

More generally, on the point that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, made on recruitment, the Government have been very clear about trying to improve the recruitment and retention process, and various changes have been made. We honoured all the Armed Forces pay review board recommendations. We have made some changes to childcare arrangements to try to improve those, and some of the recruitment processes have been changed—to have a new direct entry route into cyber, for example. There is the change of contract as well. We are trying to take on board some of the criticisms and challenges there have been to address the more general point about recruitment, but also retention. Let us see where the figures get to over the next period, because we all want to see recruitment into our Armed Forces—and, indeed, retention—improve.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her Amendments 1 and 6—I know that she has the support of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for Amendment 6. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s genuine and well-founded concerns about the experience of those applying to join the military. During Committee, we discussed the importance of a recruitment process that is fit for purpose, as I outlined to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and easy to navigate—a process that will enable as many people as possible to join their preferred service in a timely fashion and provide sufficient protections for those going through it. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, noted the number of candidates. The figure I have is that up to 150,000 candidates are applying to join the military at any one time. Bringing them into scope would obviously vastly increase the workload of the commissioner. I note the noble Baroness’s revised amendments, which attempt to narrow the numbers by defining at what point in the process an applicant would come under the commissioner’s scope. When we discussed this, the noble Baroness made it clear, as she has in the Chamber today, that she wanted to understand how the process works and what people can do if they are unhappy with how they are treated. I shall now make some remarks that I hope address some of her concerns.

The Navy, Army and RAF have different requirements and processes for recruitment. These differ depending on whether the candidate is joining as an enlisted person or as an officer. Each service has a clear complaints process for candidates. All complaints are dealt with by a qualified officer, with any medical complaints being sent to trained medical staff. To further reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, there are protections in place to ensure the welfare of candidates completing Armed Forces selection or assessment activities on defence establishments. The Armed Forces have in place appropriate safeguarding measures which are regularly reviewed and updated as appropriate in support of these activities. These measures cover, but are not limited to, staff selection, training, background checks, candidate accommodation—a point raised by the noble Baroness and by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—and the conduct of activities.

I absolutely agree that we must look after those going through the application process. However, these processes are already in place and the commissioner would not be the right avenue to replace them. I hope that, with those remarks, the noble Baroness now has the necessary reassurance. Important as they are, I ask her not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. As I said in my opening remarks, Amendment 1 was, in many ways, intended as a probing amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for pointing out the slightly sloppy redrafting of the amendment since Committee and that the last line should not have been there. I am happy at this stage to withdraw Amendment 1. Amendment 6 is consequential, so I shall not be moving it.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 12 and respond to the Government’s amendments.

One of the issues that we raised in Committee was precisely the need for a definition of “family member” and, in particular, a concern that kinship care should be taken into consideration. Between Second Reading and Committee, we had a government proposal for the sort of definition of “family” that His Majesty’s Government might bring forward.

On another of my amendments in Committee, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out that the legislation was already far too voluminous and asked whether we could please rein back a bit. I am happy to be corrected about the appropriateness of having long descriptions in the Bill. I think the suggestion of moving to the affirmative procedure for the definition of “family” in secondary legislation is acceptable.

I have one question for the Minister, but it might also be a wider one for His Majesty’s Government. We have talked about the definition, and the fact that the Government put forward some proposed wording in Committee suggests that there is a need for such a definition. However, if we already have 400 pages of legislation on the Armed Forces, do we not already have some definitions of what a family is? Do we actually need to go through the Armed Forces code—not on the Floor of the House today—to make sure that everything hangs together and we have one agreed definition that we might look at when we are at the level of secondary legislation?

For the moment, I am happy to say that, at the appropriate point, I will not be testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 12.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly rise to support the amendments laid by my noble friends Lady Goldie and Lord Minto, and congratulate them on their principled work on matters defence and, in particular, on this Bill. I wholeheartedly wish to commend all noble Lords who have engaged with this legislation and the constructive contributions from across the House. I also declare an interest as a veteran.

I add my support for Amendments 3 and 5, as at the forefront of all our minds is supporting those men and women who serve, and their families who, in turn, support them. It is an honour and often a sacrifice to wear the uniform, and it is precisely because service personnel do serve for us and our freedoms that we enjoy these deeply cherished and fought-for freedoms. The very least we can do is strengthen protections around their welfare and well-being, formally safeguarding their voices and those of their nearest and dearest under whistleblowing regulations, so that they are always heard and their welfare is never taken for granted.

The whistleblowing provisions and clarifications sought by several contributors to this debate—those provisions inherent in these amendments—are vital to providing further support and protection to our service personnel and their families. As my noble friend mentioned, this Bill is stronger because of cross-party collaboration and the shared respect that we all have for those who serve. I put on record my support for these amendments. I hope they become part of this Bill and sincerely commend the work done by all involved in bringing the Bill before Parliament.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for such an interesting and illuminating debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Kramer for answering some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on the government Benches on what difference a whistleblowing function would have compared with other complaints that might be brought to the Armed Forces commissioner.

We have heard from across the House, including from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Dannatt and Lord Wrottesley, on the importance of the whistleblowing function that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has proposed putting in the Bill. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assiduous attention in talking to those of us who have been involved at various stages of this Bill and for seeking to find ways of responding to the amendments that we have been bringing forward. I look forward to hearing what he is able to say to the House today. In particular, the anonymity aspect is important. Unless the Minister is able to bring something forward that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, feels able to support, these Benches will be supporting Amendments 3 and 5.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate and for the ongoing discussions we have had in Committee, outside of it and now back here on Report.

Let us be clear about this: there is no difference in our policy objectives. Nobody wants to read about the things the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, outlined, or about the sexism and other behaviours that we see in the Armed Forces. There is no difference between any of us on that. There is nobody here who supports that. We all want that to be exposed and we all want people to feel able to come forward, through the complaints procedure or through the new body we are setting up.

People say that we still see these things happening today, and of course that is true. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that, when the First Sea Lord went to a recent Defence Select Committee, he spoke about the number of Navy personnel who had been dismissed from the service using the legislation that the previous Government brought in. They quite commendably and rightly brought that in to deal with some of the appalling and unacceptable behaviour.

Noble Lords asked whether that legislation goes far enough and whether more needs to be done. Of course more needs to be done, which is why we have an Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. We understand that the legislation is still not sufficient and that more needs to be done. Therefore, we are bringing forward this Bill.

I understand perfectly that the intention behind the amendments is for people to feel able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions from their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with that—who is going to disagree with that? There is nobody who would disagree with that. We all want people to trust the process and the commissioner, and feel confident that their issue will be addressed and that they will not face any negative consequences from coming forward.

What is proposed in the amendments that the noble Baroness has brought forward, quite commendably, and in the arguments that have been made, is—as my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Carberry have said in their remarks—available to those who come forward now. As the Bill is currently drafted, the various policy intentions are being met. Let me go through some of the technical reasons again, because they are important.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

4: Clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must— (a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions;(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of its responsibility.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am aware that debate is taking a little longer and that we have more groups of amendments that are single amendments than many people had hoped. I therefore propose to be incredibly brief. This amendment raises the issue of the Armed Forces covenant and to what extent the Armed Forces commissioner would be subject to that covenant.

It might sound axiomatic—to use the phrase that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, used in Committee— that the Government are bound by the Armed Forces covenant but, technically, the Government are not bound by it. The covenant relates to businesses and the providers of housing and of the health service, but it does not apply to the Government per se. This amendment seeks to ask to what extent the Armed Forces commissioner will be required to look at the Armed Forces covenant. It may be that the Minister says that that is left entirely to legislation on the Armed Forces covenant, but I think it would be helpful to understand whether the commissioner would or could be bound by the legislation.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, we visited the issue of the Armed Forces covenant during our deliberations in Committee. During that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, raised the importance of the covenant and how vital it is that the commissioner be fully able to investigate covenant issues relating to the welfare of service personnel and their families. I was grateful, as I think were all noble Lords present, for the Minister’s response. It was welcome to receive clarification that the commissioner will be able to investigate such matters.

As I noted in Committee, the duty to have regard to the principles of the covenant was established in statute by the Armed Forces Act 2021. That was a significant step forward and we have seen much progress since then. I also note the Government’s intention to embed the covenant fully into law, which is indeed a welcome step. Again, I think it is already a given that the commissioner should have due regard to the covenant, and the comments from the Minister have given me the certainty that they will indeed do so.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving her amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for the comments that he has made. I also thank the noble Baroness for bringing the important topic of the Armed Forces covenant to our attention and for the valuable engagement that we have had ahead of this debate.

As we discussed in Committee, and as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out, this amendment would place a requirement on the commissioner to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant principles as part of their general functions. It would also require them to monitor and report on compliance with the covenant in all areas of their responsibilities. I will say again for the record that this Government are fully supportive of the Armed Forces covenant. The covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve; those who have served in the past; and their families, including the bereaved. Our election manifesto included a commitment to place it fully into law, which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, referenced, and which we will do.

However, as noble Lords are aware, and I will stress again, the covenant applies to both serving and former members of the Armed Forces. The Government believe that there is a separate and pressing need to address the welfare matters affecting our serving community, and that is where the Armed Forces commissioner will have the powers to make a real impact. As I have stated before, it will of course be perfectly proper that the commissioner considers covenant issues where they relate to serving members of the Armed Forces and their families—I would imagine that these issues will be within the remit of the commissioner to investigate.

With that, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness and others that, as the commissioner will be fully able to investigate covenant issues where they apply to the welfare of serving personnel and their families, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to specify this in the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am thankful to the noble Lords for responding to this small amendment. Of course, it may be possible that the whistleblower will be able to bring matters that could link to the Armed Forces covenant, if the amendment that has just been agreed is kept in the other place. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I welcome the amendment, in the sense that the noble Baroness is trying to ensure that those in the Armed Forces who are aged under 18 are protected, which I think we would all wish. I disagree with her about recruiting those aged under 18, because I suggest that the Army Foundation College in Harrogate does a fantastic job of helping and developing young people from some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. Having taken a passing-out parade there as a Minister, I have to say that it is quite emotional to see the change that some of those individuals have gone through in the time they were at Harrogate.

In saying that, the noble Baroness is correct that there have been incidents at Harrogate that should not have happened, and it is important that the commissioner is able to look at them, particularly concentrating on under-18s. I understand that Ofsted already inspects Harrogate, but I accept that is only one part of what the noble Baroness is trying to get at with this amendment.

It is important to have this debate, because whoever becomes the commissioner should look at this. When they look at particular cases, or even hold a thematic inquiry into under-18s provision, then, as the noble Baroness quite rightly says in her amendment, drawing on expertise from the Children’s Commission and others will be important. As she quite rightly says, the Armed Forces commissioner, no matter how good he or she is, will not have the specialist knowledge that the Children’s Commission and others do. So I welcome the debate: if we are to attract people to our Armed Forces, it is going to be very important that the experience they have is of the utmost quality and does not lead to some of the issues that have, sadly, arisen at Harrogate.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing this amendment. As she pointed out, we had an amendment in Committee that listed a whole set of different groups to which we suggested the Armed Forces commissioner should pay particular attention. It was not intended to be something that would ever be brought to a vote. In the light of the Atherton report and the Etherton report, it is important for the commissioner to think about groups that have faced particular problems within His Majesty’s Armed Forces, so exploring who the commissioner should take into consideration and where there might be a need for particular inquiries or reports seemed to be worth discussing.

Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, that recruiting under-18s is something that we accept, it is important to bear in mind that people aged under 18 are still technically children. It is important that the commissioner, in looking at their welfare, looks to other bodies that deal with that. In this regard, mentioning family members is also important, because if we are talking about recruitment, as the noble Lord has just done, it is not simply whether a 16 or 17 year-old wants to sign up but whether their parents feel comfortable in that as well. This is an important issue for us to discuss, but obviously not to push to a vote on this occasion.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raises an important point. The welfare of service personnel who are aged under 18 is a matter that all noble Lords wish to guarantee. I personally have fond memories of training junior leaders. They were, despite their age, some of the keenest, most determined and, at times, most fearless individuals, certainly in relation to trying out new skills, that I had the honour of serving with.

I think it right, therefore, that the Government give serious consideration to the treatment of young people recruited into the Armed Forces. They are part of the future of our Armed Forces, and it is in all our interests to provide an environment that allows them both to thrive and to flourish. When we face recruitment and retention issues, as has been discussed already, we cannot have a situation in which young people are deterred from joining up or encouraged to leave prematurely. I would be grateful if the Minister would update the House on efforts His Majesty’s Government are taking to deal with the concerns of young people serving in our Armed Forces.

The amendment from the noble Baroness also mentions the children of service personnel. They are impacted in a unique way by their parents’ service, and this can easily get forgotten or overlooked. They often have to move home when the military requires their family to relocate, which can be to different and disparate parts of the country, or indeed overseas. Moving so frequently is by no means an easy thing to ask of anyone, let alone a child. Leaving friends behind, losing a sense of normality and becoming accustomed to an entirely new way of living would be challenging for even the most adventurous of us. I mentioned in Committee that 62% of those who left the Armed Forces reported family concerns as one of their core reasons for leaving. We must address this issue head-on if we are to deal with the crisis of retention.

In direct response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, which mentions the Children’s Commissioner, I say that there must be clear delineation of responsibility for the welfare of service personnel. The Armed Forces commissioner must be responsible for investigations regarding general service welfare matters from service personnel, regardless of age. The Children’s Commissioner and the Armed Forces commissioner are two very distinct roles, and for good reasons. To conflate the two could risk confusion over responsibility. If a person under 18 has an issue regarding their welfare, as part of their military service, they should go to the Armed Forces commissioner only.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. When my noble friend Lord Beamish moved his amendment in Committee, I strongly supported it—and I support it again today. I am sure that Machiavelli would be pleased to know that his name still comes up in discussions centuries after his death.

When my noble friend the Minister introduced the Bill at Second Reading, he made the very good point that its purpose was to provide statutory authority for the new Armed Forces commissioner—it is a new role that we have not had before. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to convey the same sense of authority, this time on behalf of Parliament, because she or he will have been confirmed by the relevant committee—or committees —of either House.

My second point has nothing to do with this Bill. What my noble friend is suggesting is a very good point of principle on all such appointments. In the wider context of the relations between the Executive and the legislature, an amendment such as this strongly seeks to improve the authority of Parliament—not necessarily against the Executive, but, nevertheless, it would improve the importance and role of Parliament. Otherwise, what is the point of our being here if Parliament does not play a role?

I strongly support the amendment. It will not be pressed to a vote, and I do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say in reply, but I hope that he will convey an element of agreement with my noble friend Lord Beamish’s argument.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, seek to do what amendments that I tabled in Committee also sought to do, albeit rather less elegantly. My amendment on having parliamentary scrutiny for the Armed Forces commissioner was the source of considerable concern to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who said that it was far too detailed to put in the Bill. Therefore, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has decided to bring back this amendment, because it is important that we have a parliamentary role, and he has phrased that elegantly both in the formulation of his amendment and in what he has just said.

If we want to have an independent Armed Forces commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State, it would be appropriate that the way of appointing that person stands up to scrutiny—and both Houses of Parliament playing a role would be an effective way of doing that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that and what role His Majesty’s Government feel able to grant to Parliament in this regard.

On Amendment 14, the change of those minor words—from “may” to “must”—suggests something rather important. As with so much legislation, if you have not read the Bill, the change from “may” to “must” makes very little sense. But this is about adequate resourcing of the Armed Forces commissioner. It was pointed out earlier in today’s debate that we are already looking at considerably increasing the funding for the Armed Forces commissioner, compared with the current ombudsperson. If work needs to be done, it is vital that the role of the Armed Forces commissioner be adequately resourced, because if not, and the Armed Forces commissioner is unable fully to fulfil the job given to them, what message does that send to the Armed Forces and their families? If cases are brought and the Armed Forces commissioner does not have time to deal with the complaints or to undertake the reports needed, that will undermine the commissioner’s prestige and credibility.

If “may” cannot be converted to “must”, can the Minister explain to the House how funding will be provided and give us some guarantees that, in the longer term, the Armed Forces commissioner will be adequately resourced? As his noble friend Lord Beamish said, we might be happy that this Government will give adequate resources, but we are legislating not just for this Government but for future ones as well.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for his Amendment 13, which addresses the highly significant matter of the appointment process and the independence of the commissioner.

My noble friend Lord Courtown, in winding for the Official Opposition at Second Reading, raised the differences between the proposed commissioner and the German armed forces commissioner, as we have heard today. One of the main differences is the method of appointment, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, rightly raised. The German commissioner is elected by the Bundestag, with nominations coming from the different party groups. That role establishes a significant role for the German Parliament in the appointment process.

The commissioner here shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and not elected by Parliament. The Government have indicated that their successful candidate will appear, I believe, before the Defence Select Committee in the other place. I have two questions. First, how will the Government ensure that the person they appoint remains entirely independent? Secondly, would the Minister be amenable to the commissioner also undergoing pre-appointment scrutiny before the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House too?

On Amendment 14, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on financing what we all agree is a most positive initiative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 15 makes a provision that is consequential on Clause 3. As your Lordships are aware following our discussions in Committee, Clause 3 amends Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006, to specify that a specified “person” may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than for that function having to be carried out by a specified “officer”. An admissibility decision is an administrative decision on whether to accept or exclude a complaint from the service complaints system. The future Armed Forces commissioner will retain the power to review admissibility decisions and make a final decision about whether the complaint should be accepted into the system.

To offer some reassurance that what we are discussing is simply an administrative decision which does not require the dedicated attention of an officer, I outline the factors considered part of these decisions: whether the complaint has been made within the prescribed time limits; whether the complainant is currently serving, which includes both regular and reserve personnel; whether the complaint is a duplicate or repeat complaint; and whether the subject matter of the complaint relates to a service matter or not. There are some limited subject matter exclusions relating, for example, to matters already subject to legal proceedings or operational decisions in combat. We do not consider that this administrative decision requires military expertise—hence the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill, which allows a suitably qualified “person”, rather than an “officer”, to make that decision.

The Armed Forces (Service Complaints) Regulations 2015 set out in more detail what a specified “person” would be for these purposes, as they currently do for a specified “officer”. The regulations will be brought forward in due course and will continue to preclude the specified “person” from being anyone who is the subject of, or in any way implicated in, the statement of complaints. Thus, the effect of Clause 3 is to allow certain civilians, in addition to military personnel, to make assessments of whether a complaint made by a member of the Armed Forces is admissible in the service complaints system.

However, Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 similarly provides for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to refer certain allegations to be considered as service complaints to an appropriate “officer” in the single services. Therefore, we also need the language in Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act to be updated from “officer” to “person” so that there is not any inconsistency in the legislation. This was an oversight in our initial drafting and is what my amendment to Schedule 2 seeks to address.

This amendment would ensure that, in cases where the Armed Forces commissioner may refer complaints into the service complaints system, the references in the legislation are consistent with the fact that civilians will now be able to make admissibility decisions by virtue of Clause 3 of the Bill. With that, I beg to move the amendment in my name.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, noting that this is a consequential amendment, I simply have one question relating to what the Minister has just said. He said that there was an issue about duplicate or repeat complaints. If there were duplicate complaints—an equivalent complaint from two different people—would that not be admissible, or have I misunderstood what he said?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond to the Government’s consequential Amendment 15. In Committee, the Government brought forward this amendment, claiming that it was minor and technical. At the time, I argued that it was neither minor nor technical. It sought to introduce a substantive change to the service complaints process, and I asked the Minister for clarification, which he and his officials have helpfully provided.

The effect of these changes would mean that the current process—whereby the decision as to whether a service complaint is admissible is made by an officer—could now be made by a civilian, and the Armed Forces commissioner would be able to refer a complaint to a relevant person, as opposed to a relevant officer. Permitting a civilian to undertake these roles, even if an officer could undertake them as well, means that the decisions will, to some extent, now be taken out of the chain of command. The Explanatory Notes explicitly mention that these roles would be undertaken by a civilian, and the Minister confirmed such in Committee. The Government intend for these two roles in the complaints process to be undertaken by civilians as well as by officers, if that is necessary.

In Committee, I expressed concern about this approach, but, after meetings with the Minister—for which I thank him—I am now reassured that the decisions regarding admissibility of service complaints and the referral of complaints is much more of an administrative task than I had understood, as enlarged upon by the Minister earlier in his remarks. I accept that that is not necessarily an efficient use of an officer’s time. Given this clarification, my concerns have been assuaged, my opposition has dissipated and I am content with the position.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Certainly, the shipbuilding strategy is part of the industrial strategy going forward, but my noble friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of shipbuilding to our country and to growth. I will continue to say at this Dispatch Box that the manufacturing industry of this country needs to be rebuilt, and part of that rebuilding has to be ship- building. We look not only to the Ministry of Defence but to departments across government to do as much as they can to ensure that British ships are built in British yards. That is an important principle that they should adhere to if they possibly can.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, we are awaiting the strategic defence review and, I believe, a defence industrial strategy. Will national shipbuilding be part of that and if so, when can we expect those documents and some real progress?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We will see those documents in due course. Of course shipbuilding is going to be a part of future defence growth strategies. These are really important points, and I say again—because we are going to have to reiterate this—that this Government, the next Government and the Government after that are going to have to rebuild the ability of this country to build ships in shipyards in different parts of the country. That cannot be changed overnight: those shipyards will have to be rebuilt, and the apprentices trained. That is fundamental, and fundamental too to our national security going forward is sovereign capability; that is everything.